Where I discuss the role of economic capitalism in liberal society, clarifying the differences between economic freedom and political freedom. I argued that economic freedom is a precondition for political freedom and the importance of the government’s role in investing in human capital. 

The second influential piece of work that I had published in 1963, titled “A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960.” 

 

Essentially one of my most notable pieces of work, I utilized a historical time series (1867-1960) and economic analyses to argue that monetary policy should control the money supply. Before publishing this novel, monetary forces only played passive roles in the economy and commercial banks alongside the Federal Reserve Bank failed to maintain steady control of the money supply leading to the Depression. The overall thesis of my work was that the money supply has huge effects on the economy, a thesis that is now taken into account time and time again by policy makers.

The third influential work I’d like to mention, published in 1969, titled “ The Definition of Money: Net Wealth and Neutrality as Criteria.” I discuss some of my views of what money is and should be as well as my distaste towards paper currency and monopolies, while also arguing against the misconception that money is neutral in the short run as a result of the money illusion. 

 

Other influential pieces of works are in abundance, a few being “The Monetarist Controversy” (1977) “A Monetary Theory of Nominal Income” (1971) etc. 

 

I also theorized that there existed a "natural" rate of unemployment, and I argued that employment above this rate would cause inflation to accelerate. I thought the Phillips curve was, in the long run, vertical at the "natural rate" and predicted what would come to be known as stagflation.

 

My best-known contributions are in the realm of monetary economics. Many people regard me as the founder of monetarism. In the 1950s, macroeconomics was dominated by scholars who followed the theories promoted by John Maynard Keynes. I liked to call these “naive Keynesian” theories. The followers of Keynes believed in using government-sponsored policy to counteract the business cycle, and they believed that fiscal policy was more effective than monetary policy in neutralizing the instability of the business cycle and that prices are inherently sticky. I opposed these macroeconomic views with my own economic theory of free-market monetarism. Through this theory, I showed the world the importance of monetary policy. I believed that a steady, small expansion of the money supply was the preferred macroeconomic policy to promote economic growth. I pointed out how the changes in the money supply have real short-term and long-term effects on people and the economy. I also used monetarism to openly contradict the Keynesian principles of the Keynesian multiplier and the Philips curve. 

 

I also argued for many other things such as a volunteer army, abolition of licensing of doctors, education vouchers, legalization of drugs and prostitution, gay rights, among other things.

 

Over the course of my career, I published pioneering books on the modern economy as well as numerous influential articles, changing the way economics is taught all around the globe. You're welcome world.

 

 “Milton Friedman.” Econlib, Liberty Fund, Inc, www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Friedman.html. Accessed 3 June 2017.

"Milton Friedman." Milton Friedman: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 June 2017.

“Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman's Life Story Will Inspire You To Reach For The Stars!” The Famous People, The Famous People, www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/milton-friedman-167.php. Accessed 3 June 2017.

Staff, Investopedia. “Milton Friedman.” Investopedia, Investopedia, LLC, 23 Nov. 2009, www.investopedia.com/terms/m/milton-friedman.asp. Accessed 3 June 2017.

 

"The Big Picture." The Big Picture: Macro perspective on the capital markets, economy, geopolitics, technology and digital media. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 June 2017.

When I was a year old, my family relocated to Rahway, New Jersey. There, my mother opened a dry goods shop and my father was variously employed. Although my family was financially weak, we had enough to eat, and the environment at home was always warm and supportive.

In 1928, I graduated from Rahway High School. Unfortunately, my father had passed away by this time, resulting in the worsening of the financial condition at home. Because of this, if I wanted to study in university I would have to finance it myself. Fortunately, I was awarded a competitive scholarship to Rutgers University. Financing the rest of the expenses, I did odd jobs. I earned my B.A. degree in 1932, majoring in mathematics and economics. Subsequently, I joined the University of Chicago with a scholarship in economics and earned my M.A. degree in 1933. I then went to Columbia University and spent time there studying statistics with my good friend Harold Hotelling. After that I worked at University of Wisconsin. In 1943, I joined the Division of War Research at Columbia University where I spent the rest of World War II working as a mathematical statistician, focusing on problems of weapons design, military tactics, and metallurgical experiments. I got PhD in 1946 then worked at the Universtiy of Chicago for 30 years.

In 1977, at the age of 65, I retired. Despite being retired, I still worked on many projects such as Free to Choose, being an unofficial advisor to Ronald Regan, visited Eastern Europe and China, where I advised the governments. I also wrote many editorials and appeared on TV. 

Although my parents are religious, I would describe myself as an agnostic. 

 

My son, David D. Friedman, was born on 1945. What a great year that was. 

I died of heart failure at the age of 94 years in San Francisco on November 16, 2006. 

Cool life right?

Sincerely, Raghuram Rajan

Reply: 
Hello, Mr.Rajan. Allow me to introduce you to one of my very famous quotes about income inequality; "A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.... On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality." You see I myself am unconcerned about income inequality in the free-market, as stated in some of my most famous books "Capitalism and Freedom" and "Free to Choose" there are three reasons why. The first being that some degree of inequality is actually healthy and desirable in any well functioning economic system. The second being that income inequality is something that is unavoidable in a well functioning economy because without a difference in pay gap there will be no incentive for workers. The third and final being that the actual degree of income inequality observed in economies is actually much lower than expected.The inequality as I see it will drive workers to work harder and hone their craft, inequality will always exist especially when we talk about the opportunities a child may receive. Children of wealth parents will obviously be at an advantage against those of poorer parents and this may eventually cause a greater gap in income inequality, however that's just the nature of any well-functioning economic system. As note by me before "it seems illogical to say that a man is entitled to what he has produced by personal capacities or to the produce of the wealth he has accumulated, but that he is not entitled to pass any wealth on to his children." The problems of income inequality don't really concern me. Cheers, 

Piketty:
Hello, Mr. Friedman. I am very sorry but I disagree with your belief of the free market and capitalism. I'm not sure if you've heard of my book (Probs cuz you ded but its g) called "Capital", I basically outline the fact how capitalism is a major cause of leading our world economies into wealth inequality. I outline a theory in which I created where if the rate of return of wealth is greater than the overall growth in the economy it will create wealth inequality. And so far this has been an extreme case with wealth inqueatlity as many of the rich people have their money because of inheritance. This makes it so that the rate of return of wealth increases much more than than the overall growth in the economy.
Many thanks, 
Piketty  

Reply:
Hello, Mr.Piketty. I would hope that someone of your stature would address someone like me with proper grammar (which is another reason as to why I probably won't be reading your book) but as I have mentioned in my reply to Mr.Rajan, income inequality does not concern me. (In fact, my entire rebuttal can be found in my reply to Mr.Rajan)When you weigh the pros and cons of capitalism, the benefits that come from capitalism far outweigh the income inequality experience by people, especially when income inequality is something that occurs naturally in any well-functioning market. I would hope that you are more specific for which exerts of your book you are referring to with specific reasons as to why you believe capitalism is a major cause for income inequality before even attempting to challenge my ideas.Sincerely, Milton